|
|
|
|
|
Rotwang
Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 1589
Location: Vic
|
Quote
"Grant Cooper Advanced RoboteerUsername: Grant_ploughbotPost Number: 539Registered: 03-2004 Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2007 - 9:21 pm:
James - I did not attend the meeting, but to shed some light on why these guidlines for running spinners has been changed I'll explain. We did some testing....(seperate testing was also done by the FRA) At 100mph - with a 250g projectile of steel, 1" daimetre. This went clean through 12mm plywood, infact it didnt just go through, it smashed through even when sideways!! It was just about stopped by 18mm plywood, but it did penetrate the other side. All the other materials except for polycarb including the very tough lorry curtains, even two layers with stanless steel meshing didnt slow the projectile down at very low speeds! Im sure, even you dont agree with the new guidlines that there must be something done to stop the possibility of things escaping from an arena this easily - to be honest i was extreamly shocked by how badly any materials stood up to impacts. If you run spinners in an arena not to these specifications, then you run the risk of serious injury and insurance will be invalid."
Just scaned through the Pomie thread http://www.fightingrobots.co.uk/forum.htm
The Fighting Robot Association Forum » FRA General Chatter » FRA urgent announcement
This seemed relevant, we have been thinking about the roof situation and having been informed of possible problems something will need to be done to improve it.
By that I mean test or strengthen roof not mandate tethers. _________________ Satisfaction is proportional to effort and results.
|
Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:43 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
jamesb
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 3
Location: wales uk
|
you are giving far too much credit Daniel, the guys here still don't realize that there are different types of polycarb for example. Try hitting an equal size and thickness of PalUV test sample and a Lexan Marguard sample and see just how "equal" polycarb is.
Serious, a large pinch of salt is needed.
Believe it or not, poeople here will still swear blind that 10mm of polycarb is bullett proof... regardless of brand UV exposure, mounting method or the gun size.... mad!
For another example, we still assume a motor of 1500rpm gets a 2kg bar to 1500rpm or more.
No such thing as losses, friction, or physics in the UK.
Assume everyone is stupid until they prove otherwise. (of course, I am not saying everyone in the UK is like this, but there are some very convincing "experts" who are basically kids talking recycled crap, knowingly or not, and grown up versions of the same thing)
|
Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:01 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
kkeerroo
Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 1459
Location: Brisbane
|
I have been through the RFL arena "standards" and I beleive that they make sense. For those who haven't seen them:
* RFL arena nomenclature for describing arenas: formal rating of arenas requires testing and inspection currently beyond the resources of the RFL. The arena ratings are intended to provide a consistent means for EOs to describe their arenas, based on their knowledge and experience.
o D: No protection (no robots that can send stuff flying allowed, and observers and drivers could get hit by a robot) example: parking lot fights]
o C: Little Protection (curb, but no polycarbonate, no robots that can send stuff flying) example: most 'street fights']
o B: Good Protection (no robots that require pre-approval, roughly 1/4" polycarbonate or better all around)
o A: Better Protection (no limitations, but pre-approval required over certain limits) [example: the COMBOTS arena]
o This letter rating plus a max weight rating and an ICE note, this way an event like COMBOTS would rate themselves 'A-440-ICE' (440lbs includes the walker bonus.) Whereas SACBOTS would also be an A rated arena but only for 3 pounds and no gas engines and would look like this... 'A-6' (also including the walker bonus)
o Note that an arena receives a rating based on its 'worst' element. If it has A rated sides, but no roof, it is rated a C.
As stated at the top the standards are merely for EOs to describe their arena to potential combatants and advise them as to what can or cannot be run. _________________ Get Some!!!
Secretary of the Queensland Robotics Sports Club inc.
|
Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
|